Thread: Mercedes Finance Rip-Off

I have been leasing a Mercedes for three years and returned it two months ago.

I received a bill for £1,500 - £450 for excess mileage which was agreed, and then a further £1,100 for wear and tear, which was simply ridiculous. I paid around £200 which I deemed fair and called Merc to dispute the remainder.

The chap on the phone listened to my complaint and said he would get back to me. A week later I received a standard letter, which bore no relevance to the call and referred me to 4.2 in my contract which they said stated the car should be returned free from damage (rather than the contract stating 'good condition'.

I wrote a reply (which I have pasted below) and again I received an exact copy of the first letter - incredible!

I wrote again stating that this must have been a mistake as they surely would not be so rude.

I received a call from customer services checking I received their letter and I said 'did you receive my reply as your letter was irrelevant'. He said yes and that he apologised and would send a correct response.

A month has passed with no letter or no call until tonight their debt collectors rang!!!

They offered me a 25% discount but I said no and i am set to call Mercedes.

Hopefully my letter below will help understand my issues. Does anyone have advice / experience as to the claims I am making?

The problem seems to be that Mercedes say they issue guidelines for reasonable damage, but I never received this and am prepared to swear an oath in court on this basis. Anyway, read on...

Thank you for your correspondence regarding my disputed invoice from Mercedes Benz; however I feel it does not reflect the conversation I had with your colleague and my grievances with the bill received.

The Mercedes leased from you was my third lease car I believe; so as a seasoned leaser, never have I been issued with such an invoice before, despite the car being in a similar condition to my previous leases. This has clearly caused me distress when I was presented with such a huge bill.

I fully understand that Jet Logistics are not responsible for assessing the car, but I have the following issues with Mercedes’ assessment:

• The marks highlighted are – in my opinion – completely reasonable wear and tear. A three-year old car has been returned yet you’re asking me to fund its return to showroom condition. No lease I have ever undertaken has made such a punitive and cynical demand. This is very cheeky.

• The basis of the problem is highlighted by your letter. You refer to clause 4.2 which you claim states the vehicle should be returned ‘free of damage’. Actually clause 4.2 describes the car needing to be returned in ‘good condition’.

The odd chip or 2cm mark does not constitute a car in less than good condition in my opinion, or that of a major online buying guide who describe good condition as:

‘Cars that show wear consistent with their age. There are no major mechanical or cosmetic problems. The paint still looks good, but possibly has some scratches or dings. Some minor touch up might be needed. The interior has minimal wear on the seats and carpet. The tyres are in good shape and have some life left to them. A four-star car ideally has its maintenance records available, a clean title, and can pass inspection’.

It is impossible to argue that the car I returned does not meet this – or any - definition of ‘good’ condition.

• Despite your invoice coming complete with reference to prescriptive minimum sizes of alleged damage, at NO POINT EITHER PRIOR OR DURING MY LEASE did I sign, or was issued a document that advised me of any minimum guidelines for size of chips and marks (which is what your initial invoice refers to), nor any definition of reasonable wear and tear. This is crucial as there is a clear difference between your requirement of ‘free from damage’ (showroom condition) and ‘good condition’, which is what I signed and agreed to in the contract. It’s a bit like me giving you a speeding fine without you being given fair knowledge of the speed limit. How can I adhere to rules that were never issued to me?

• If I had received any guidelines as to what you deem unreasonable damage, even weeks before the end of my lease, I would have had the opportunity to understand any alternate or amended interpretation of ‘good condition’ and possibly chosen to rectify these minor blemishes for significantly cheaper. As these were not forthcoming, I was left to interpretations along the lines of point 1, 2 and my previous experience of leasing cars from Saab and others. I am now left with a bill that I not only deem unwarranted, but one considerably larger than if I had the benefit of a chance to rectify any repairs locally in advance of returning the car.

• I do not believe that the pictures provided are sufficiently clear and I am unhappy with the references to some of the alleged marks; and as such I am even questioning whether these were done whilst I had the car.

Having spoken in depth with my lawyer I am adamant that by not giving me notice of any prescriptive measurements for wear and tear I cannot be held to these unambiguous terms and subsequent costs when all I received was the said wording about ‘good condition’ – which is exactly the condition the car was returned.

I am not unreasonable however, and have paid the elements I agree to be fair and outside of the definition of ‘good condition’ as well as excess mileage.

I would hope that this matter now does not go any further – as it would seem a rather reckless way to treat a potential lifetime customer.

Hello there,

I have just returned a CLC and have experienced a similar problem. How did you get along with your dispute? Any advice would be much appreciated as this is very worrying as they are trying to charge me in excess of £600 for damage when I took the vehicle to my local Merc dealer and they told me that the slight dent to the wing would cost £80 + VAT to fix and that it wasnt worth doing it as they would not charge me that much upon return! Also, an area of damage to the inside drivers door was caused by a faulty seat belt which was replaced under warranty but that Merc Finance will not deduct from the damage because they say it is not their fault the seat belt was faulty. Unbelievable! Your advice would be much appreciated.

Hi, eventually they got a negotiator involved and we agreed an amount I was kind of happy with but will never lease a car from them again if that's how they treat customers. If I were you I would stand your ground and just explain yourself reasonably throughout. Only offer then what is reasonable and get a written quote from the Mercedes garage who memtioned the £80. Good luck and let me know how you get on.

I too have just been sent a bill for over £600! the car is 4 years old for goodness sake, and they have sent me photo's of the 'damage' which is just wear and tear - and you cannot see any damage in the photo's, and they say the car is unavailble to re-inspect - so Im supposed to take their word for this. a) the damage is honestly just wear and tear and most of it is expected for a car of this age b) they are not proving the damage c) they should have given me the opportunity of reacting to this report BEFORE taking the car away, as I could have got this work done BEFORE handing the car back. Its nonsense to expect the car to be in showroom condition after 4 years, and unreasonable!

A friend had this problem - still unsolved. Any complaints just get stonewalled: never lease, particularly from this bunch.

I scanned the contract's 5pt type into a type reading program to get a proper look at it. The paragraph at the bottom of the first column doesn't link to the paragraph at the top of the second: it's clear that nobody could have read this document in detail when signing, or they would have said "why doesn't this make sense?". Even if they do read it, it doesn't mention the whole palava of private or vaguely public documents about wear and tear.

0.1.4
If
the Vehicle is not in good condition, repair and working order when it is returned to us,
or if
any additions, alterations or replacements have been made which we reasonably consider affect the value of the Vehicle,
then
you will have to compensate us for any loss that we suffer.

In such circumstances,
we will obtain estimates for the cost of any works of repair or replacement which we reasonably consider are necessary to restore the Vehicle to the appropriate condition.

We will then be entitled to choose whether to carry out some or all of these works,
in which case the actual costs which we incur will be immediately payable by you.

If there are any works which we do not carry out, you will instead be liable to pay us the estimated cost of those works as agreed compensation for the consequent reduction in the sale value of the Vehicle.

This is absolutely nothing like the system they're imposing on customers http://bit.ly/financecompanyaskforthis .

I don't know if a judge would agree with me as my friend is out of contact anyway and not getting their letters, but I'd like to know if anyone else has more luck. Just in case it's useful to anyone, this is part of my last letter to them.

I don't see Mr X's signature on the return standards http://bit.ly/financecompanyaskforthis which seem to be a public but internal document from the finance company, while the scale of repair charges seems a private internal document. In place of a scale of charges there is a warning to customers not to attempt repairs pre-return and a threat that they might be done again. It is really a document that says a finance company can charge what it likes.

I consider that buying brand-new lamp clusters, bumper & bumper spray-painting is not an industry norm in the second hand motor trade when restoring old limousines. There is a glut of them. They are only worth £3,000 in the trade before questions about bumpers & lamp lenses. There are obviously second hand parts available for most 7 year-old cars & old limousines more than most.

About servicing - the same point with different detail.

Mr X paid a freelance mechanic to service the car, keeping receipts for parts. These were in the bag no BO3579 signed-for on return of the car. I can provide copies if needed. There's also evidence that the car had two MOT tests a year as part of its use as a London cab.

Unfortunately Mr X wasn't in the country to track-down the mechanic and get the car log book stamped, but I think this counts as "reasonable" care under the words of the contract; there is nothing in the contract about updating a record on car's computer, which this mechanic could not do. Evidence for "missing service history" quoted with the invoice is simply a photo of the car's dashboard showing error messages from the car's computer; there's no reference to paper evidence sent with the car.

A pity the letter hasn't worked: I thought I was doing quite well!
John

PS The company keeps changing its name but not its postcode, which makes it expensive to find judgements against them. Now, why would anyone want to do that?

company number 2472364 at
Burystead Court
120 Caldecotte Lake Drive
Caldecotte
MILTON KEYNES
MK7 8ND

00/00/0000 MERCEDES-BENZ FINANCE LIMITED
04/01/2000 DAIMLERCHRYSLER FINANCIAL SERVICES (DEBIS) LIMITED
13/08/2001 DAIMLERCHRYSLER SERVICES UK LIMITED
14/02/2006 DAIMLERCHRYSLER FINANCIAL SERVICES UK LIMITED
01/04/2008 MERCEDES BENZ FINANCIAL SERVICES UK LIMITED

seems i am not the only one
i am in the same boat and getting screwed by mercedes finance for a total of £1573
just wanted to find out the result of other peoples complaints and advice as well

Mercedes Benz leasing offers

Beware of mercedes benz leasing offers and the mercedes benz lease rip off. mercedes benz leases at the end of the lease! Beware leasing offers from mercedes benz. I had a car for 2 years, it was immaculate, under the mileage, not a scratch. I loved that car.

2 weeks after collection I get a bill for damage for £650. I query it and I'm met by 2 separate advisers on different occasions who were downright rude and stopped short of calling me a liar when i said it wasn't damaged by me. The photos are as clear as mud. I said I won't pay, they set their debt collectors on me calling every day, letters, texts. I call back same problem.

I haven't time for a fight so I paid them. My company have 4 lease cars, we won't EVER lease another MB again following their attitude. I make it my point to tell every businessman I meet my story, so far 2 business people (in 2 months) I associate with have NOT leased MB. Its now a sport to me, this will cost them more than £650 in lost orders they stung me for.

I hope it is worth it for them.

I am currently doing battle with MB Finance, I received a bill for a car I handed back. I am being asked to pay for damages which are stone chips and are allowable under the agreement and for an excess mileage charge. I am really not happy about the mileage charge as I made my requirement very clear when I purchased the car and that I wanted a total of 60k miles for the contract (which was listed in the contract as 20k pa). I checked the contract which stated the correct mileage amount per year and I went to the trouble of reading the contract before signing it. Before we decided to hand the car back we checked wether we were within our mileage and MB finance confirmed that we were.

When I hand the car back, they are trying to charge me for excess mileage because they have calculated the milage on pro rata basis as the agreement runs for x years and y months. There is a clause in the contract which is ambiguous which states 'calculated using the Annual Distance stated in this agreement for each year or part of year between the start date and the date of return.' Does this mean that part of a year is actually a whole year so 2 years 9 months is actually 3 years for the purposes of the calculation or is it 2 years 9 months? I am very upset about this as the annual mileage is stated on the front page and this clause sits on the last page and there is no total mileage stated for the agreement (which would have resolved this matter).

I feel very strongly about this as I am not happy about being accused of breaching a contract when I believe I have done everything correctly and to the best of my ability.

My take on the mileage calculation would be that it is pro-rata on a monthly basis. So a 20K per annum allowance for 2 years 9 months would be
20,000 x 2.75 = 55,000

I am not sure if you were suggesting you thought you should be allowed the full 60,000 for 3 years even though you didn't keep it for 3 years or something else?

A google search found me on this thread. We have just received an invoice today for £859 for a returned 55 plate c class coupe. We had the vehicle for 3 years and, as far as we were concerned, was handed back in a condition commensurate with its age and mileage. The Breakdown states the vehicle needs a new front and rear bumper at £250 each - utter nonsense. As others have stated, the enclosed photographs don't even show any marks. We are happy to pay for scuffed alloys, but like the OP, I am not prepared to pay to return the vehicle to showroom condition. My husband will be making a phone call to them first thing in the morning, but after reading these posts, I don't hold out much hope. I am baffled that they will not let you re-inspect the vehicle - surely this is against your rights as a consumer? These photos could be from any car and the marks could have happened in transit.

As far as I'm concerned they can take a flying **** to themselves if they think they're getting £859 out of me, but my husband is concerned it could affect our credit rating so I suspect we'll be out of pocket. But not before I've taken legal advice, contacted the papers, Watchdog and staged a one woman demonstration outside their showroom.

EVERYONE BE WARNED! Do NOT lease any vehicle from Mercedes. I too have been caught up in the [problem] by Mercedes. a 2 yr old C Class AMG 09 plate which had been the duff from the factory was ecstatically returned when I thankfully took delivery of an e class coupe. 2 months later I have been presented with a bill for £1,251 for 'damage' and scuffed alloys. Despite querying and arguing my case the debt collectors are on my case every day. When I returned the car I was told it was in excellent condition!!! I have never had any problem before, whether buying or leasing Mercedes. They grovel all over you when you are buying and hang you out to dry when they set the debt collectors on you.

It is a disgrace, No car will be returned in showroom condition unless we all keep them 24/7 in the garage and never drive the damn things. Now, I can only imagine the inflated bill I will be presented with on this car..... FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT